Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 161 references

Halo magnetic fields erase their seed origin by z=0; the intergalactic medium keeps it, and SN injection alone falls short of gamma-ray lower limits.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 06:29 UTC pith:USVXDRLW

load-bearing objection Solid TNG-based magnetogenesis suite: halo dynamo saturation is robust; the IGM high-z claim is real but tied to one hand-tuned BH-wind point they themselves show is movable. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08812 v1 pith:USVXDRLW submitted 2026-07-09 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Magnetogenesis by galactic processes: impact on circumgalactic and intergalactic fields

Rahul Ramesh , Enrico Garaldi , Chris Byrohl This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO
keywords magnetogenesisintergalactic magnetic fieldscircumgalactic mediumsupernova feedbacksupermassive black hole feedbacksmall-scale dynamocosmological MHD simulationsmagnetic coherence length
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper asks whether the magnetic fields we see today in galaxies and between them can be made by stars and black holes, or whether a primordial seed from the early Universe is still required. Using large cosmological magnetohydrodynamic simulations, the authors inject magnetic energy during supernova and supermassive-black-hole feedback and compare those runs to ones that start with a weak uniform primordial field. Inside collapsed halos the final field strengths at the present day look almost the same no matter how the field was seeded, because small-scale and halo-scale dynamos amplify and saturate the energy. Outside the halos the story is different: supernova winds alone leave too little magnetization to meet lower limits inferred from gamma-ray cascades, while a specific black-hole wind prescription can satisfy present-day limits but is still mildly short at high redshift. Topology also differs: black-hole-driven models produce systematically smaller coherence lengths. Feedback injection also makes magnetic strengths converge faster with numerical resolution, especially in lower-mass systems.

Core claim

At z=0, magnetic field strengths inside halos of roughly 10^11.5–10^12 solar masses are largely insensitive to whether the seed was primordial or injected by supernova or black-hole winds; the final budget is set by dynamo action. In the intergalactic medium the seed memory survives: supernova-only injection underproduces the volume-filling fields implied by gamma-ray cascade lower limits at both z=0 and z~3, while the authors’ particular black-hole injection meets today’s limits but remains in mild tension at high redshift, so those constraints likely need modified feedback or a residual primordial component.

What carries the argument

Sub-grid magnetic-dipole injection into wind particles (a fraction of supernova wind energy, or of high-accretion black-hole feedback energy) that recouple and deposit a dipole into neighbouring gas cells; the resulting energy is then amplified by small-scale and halo-scale dynamos whose power spectra approach saturation independent of the original seed.

Load-bearing premise

The magnetic and kinetic energy fractions loaded into the winds, and the black-hole launch-velocity formula, are free parameters chosen as large as possible while still keeping the simulated galaxy population roughly consistent with observed star-formation and stellar-mass relations, not fixed by microphysics.

What would settle it

A direct measurement or tighter lower limit on the volume-filling fraction of intergalactic magnetic field strength above roughly 10^-10.8 microgauss at z~3 that cannot be reached by any plausible recalibration of the black-hole wind scheme while still matching galaxy observables.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a suite of AREPO cosmological MHD simulations (L_box=25 Mpc/h) built on the IllustrisTNG galaxy formation model, comparing uniform primordial seed fields to subgrid magnetic injection during SN and high-accretion SMBH feedback (via wind particles that deposit randomly oriented dipoles normalized by Eq. 1). Halo magnetic field strengths at z=0 are found to be largely similar across seeding models and regulated by small-scale and halo-scale dynamo action (radial profiles, Fig. 3; kinetic/magnetic power spectra with Kazantsev/Kolmogorov scalings, Fig. 4), while topology differs (smaller coherence lengths in BH-driven runs, Fig. 8). Feedback injection accelerates dynamo onset and improves resolution convergence, especially in lower-mass halos (Appendix A). In the IGM, SN-only injection underproduces volume-filling fields relative to γ-ray cascade lower limits at z=0 and z~3, whereas the authors’ specific BH-wind prescription meets present-day limits but remains in mild tension at high z (Fig. 7), leading to the claim that reconciling those high-z constraints likely requires modified feedback or an additional primordial component.

Significance. If the halo result holds, it strengthens the view that dynamo saturation largely erases seed memory inside collapsed structures, while IGM magnetization retains a clearer imprint of origin and transport—an important distinction for interpreting γ-ray, UHECR, and Faraday-rotation constraints. The work is concrete and useful: multi-model radial profiles, power spectra, filament and IGM statistics, a local field-line coherence diagnostic (THOR), resolution suites (Appendix A), and explicit BH-wind parameter variations (Appendix B). The authors also document that their free magnetic/kinetic fractions are near-maximal values chosen to preserve SFRD and M⋆/M200 (Section 3.1, Fig. 1), which is transparent even if it limits uniqueness. The paper is a solid contribution to the astrophysical-versus-primordial magnetogenesis debate, provided the IGM conclusions are framed as model-dependent rather than generic.

major comments (2)
  1. The load-bearing IGM claim (abstract; §3.4; §4 point 4)—that SN-only underproduces γ-ray lower limits while “our specific SMBH-based injection” satisfies z=0 limits but remains in mild tension at z~3, so reconciling high-z constraints “likely requires either modified feedback prescriptions or an additional primordial seeding component”—rests on free parameters of §2.3.2 and §3.1 (τ_mag,SN=1%, τ_kin,BH=0.1%, τ_mag,BH=0.02%, the massless-wind velocity law Eq. 3, magnetization only of the high-accretion channel, and the E_min,KE burstiness threshold). These are hand-chosen as near-maximal values that keep SFRD and M⋆/M200 roughly observational (Fig. 1), not fixed by microphysics. Appendix B then shows that IGM volume-filling fractions are highly sensitive to exactly those knobs: reducing burstiness (E_min,KE ↓100×) substantially lowers filling fractions (Fig. B2); doubling launch velocity l
  2. §3.4 and Fig. 7 compare IGM filling fractions to Neronov & Vovk (2010) and Vovk (2026) lower limits, but the text itself notes that plasma instabilities may dominate pair-cascade energy losses (Broderick et al. 2012; Perry & Lyubarsky 2021), making the robustness of those limits non-trivial. Given that the paper’s distinctive conclusion is framed against these specific high-z constraints, the discussion should either (i) quantify how the “mild tension” changes under alternate cascade interpretations, or (ii) demote the high-z inference from a primary claim to a conditional statement under the inverse-Compton-dominated assumption. As written, the abstract and §4 point 4 over-weight a contested observational anchor relative to the paper’s own caveats.
minor comments (5)
  1. Section 2.3 / Eq. 1: the dipole normalization and the choice of 64±4 neighbor cells are reasonable but under-motivated; a short note on sensitivity to neighbor number or soft radius would help reproducibility.
  2. Figure 2 white contours and the M200c ≳ 10^11.5 M⊙ convergence cut (Appendix A) are important; state the mass cut more prominently in the main-text figure caption so readers do not over-interpret unconverged low-mass systems.
  3. Section 3.5: the 30° / 10-cell coherence proxy is arbitrary (as acknowledged); reporting one alternate angle or a power-spectrum integral scale for a subset of environments would strengthen the topology comparison.
  4. Low-accretion (kinetic) SMBH feedback is left unmagnetized by design (§2.3.2). A one-sentence justification that this choice does not reverse the IGM ordering would close an obvious loophole.
  5. Minor typos and notation: “V ovk” spacing, occasional “Byz=0” concatenation, and inconsistent use of B_prim vs Bseed across figures/appendices.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity: free magnetic/kinetic fractions are maximized under external galaxy constraints (SFRD, SHMR), then IGM filling fractions are compared to independent γ-ray lower limits; Appendix B sensitivity is acknowledged model dependence, not a tautology.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a suite of AREPO+TNG simulations with three classes of seeding (primordial uniform Bprim, SN-wind magnetic loading τmag,SN, BH-wind kinetic+magnetic loading τkin,BH/τmag,BH plus a massless-wind velocity law). Halo |B| similarity and dynamo saturation (Figs. 3–4) emerge from the resolved MHD evolution itself and are cross-checked by resolution suites (Appendix A). IGM conclusions (Figs. 6–7) are obtained by measuring volume-filling fractions in the same runs and overlaying external γ-ray cascade lower limits (Neronov & Vovk 2010; Vovk 2026); those limits are never used as fit targets. The free parameters are explicitly chosen as the largest values that still keep the simulated SFRD and M⋆/M200c roughly consistent with Behroozi/Moster/Madau data (Section 3.1, Fig. 1), i.e., calibration to a disjoint observable set. Appendix B then varies burstiness, launch velocity and seed mass and shows that IGM filling fractions move, which the authors themselves flag as motivation for future re-calibration rather than a forced prediction. Self-citations (Garaldi et al. 2021, prior Ramesh papers) supply methods or qualitative context and are not invoked as uniqueness theorems that close the argument. No equation reduces the claimed IGM tension to a definitional identity or to a fit of the same quantity being predicted. The residual score of 1 reflects only the ordinary presence of free sub-grid parameters whose values affect the quantitative IGM result; that is model dependence, not circularity under the stated criteria.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 5 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claims rest on the IllustrisTNG galaxy-formation and ideal-MHD machinery plus three hand-chosen magnetic/kinetic energy fractions and a SIMBA-inspired BH wind velocity law chosen to maximize magnetic impact without wrecking SFRD/SMHM. The IGM verdict further assumes that the cited γ-ray cascade lower limits can be compared directly to volume filling fractions of |B|. No new fundamental physics entities are required beyond the subgrid injection carriers.

free parameters (7)
  • τ_mag,SN = 0.01
    Fraction of SN wind energy loaded as magnetic energy; set to 1% as largest value that does not overshoot SFRD constraints (Section 3.1).
  • τ_kin,BH = 0.001
    Kinetic energy fraction of high-accretion SMBH feedback energy routed into massless winds; set to 0.1% near-maximal while keeping galaxy population acceptable.
  • τ_mag,BH = 0.0002
    Magnetic energy fraction of high-accretion SMBH feedback energy; set to 0.02% by the same calibration logic.
  • B_prim = 10^-14 cG
    Uniform primordial seed field strength in primordial and hybrid runs; standard TNG-like choice, not derived here.
  • v_wind(M_BH) coefficients = 500 km/s base; 500/3 dex slope
    BH wind launch speed law v=500+(500/3)log10(M_BH/10^6 M_⊙) km/s inspired by SIMBA; coefficients chosen by hand (Eq. 3).
  • E_min,KE / burstiness threshold = 1/2 m_bar v_wind^2 (fiducial)
    Minimum kinetic energy before spawning BH winds; controls burstiness and strongly affects IGM filling fractions (Appendix B.2).
  • τ_thm,SN = 0.10
    Thermal wind energy fraction fixed at TNG value 10%; not retuned but part of energy partition with magnetic loading.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Ideal MHD with Powell eight-wave divergence control adequately captures cosmic magnetic amplification and transport on resolved scales.
    Inherited from TNG/AREPO MHD setup (Section 2.2); non-ideal effects and unresolved dynamo scales are not modeled.
  • domain assumption The IllustrisTNG cooling, star formation, SN wind, and dual-mode SMBH feedback model is a valid base for magnetogenesis experiments.
    Entire suite is built 'atop' TNG (Section 2.2); only high-accretion mode is modified for magnetic/kinetic winds.
  • ad hoc to paper Magnetic energy injected at wind recoupling can be represented as a randomly oriented dipole normalized by Eq. 1 into ~64 neighboring cells.
    Subgrid recipe following Beck et al. 2013 / Donnert et al. 2009 style (Section 2.3); not derived from resolved remnant physics.
  • domain assumption γ-ray cascade non-detections imply volume-filling IGM |B| lower limits comparable to the vertical lines used in Figure 7 (Neronov & Vovk 2010; Vovk 2026).
    Authors themselves caution that plasma instabilities may dominate pair energy loss (Section 3.4), so the comparison is model-dependent.
  • ad hoc to paper Low-accretion kinetic SMBH feedback need not inject magnetic energy for the conclusions drawn.
    Explicitly not modified (Section 2.3.2); may understate late-time BH magnetization in massive systems.
invented entities (2)
  • Massless BH wind particles carrying only momentum and a magnetic dipole no independent evidence
    purpose: Transport kinetic and magnetic energy from high-accretion SMBHs into galactic and IGM scales without adding mass.
    Numerical carrier introduced in Section 2.3.2; no independent observational identification beyond analogy to BAL/disk winds.
  • Subgrid magnetic dipole injection at SN/BH wind recoupling no independent evidence
    purpose: Deposit a controlled magnetic energy budget into ambient gas when winds recouple.
    Implementation detail of magnetogenesis recipes (Eq. 1); phenomenological, not a new physical field or particle.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 34597 in / 4305 out tokens · 36247 ms · 2026-07-13T06:29:15.210176+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the origin and evolution of cosmic magnetic fields using a suite of large-volume cosmological magnetohydrodynamic simulations (L$_\mathrm{box}=25$ Mpc/h) run with the moving-mesh code AREPO. Atop the IllustrisTNG galaxy formation model, we implement additional recipes for magnetogenesis in which magnetic energy is injected during supernovae (SNe) and supermassive black hole (SMBH) feedback events, and compare these to simulations initialized with uniform primordial seed fields. Halo magnetic field strengths at $z=0$ are largely similar across seeding models and are primarily amplified and sustained by small-scale and halo-scale dynamo action. Nevertheless, we find differences in magnetic field topology, with SMBH-driven models exhibiting systematically smaller coherence lengths than primordial-only and SNe-only runs. We find that feedback-driven injection accelerates the onset of dynamo growth, leading to more rapid convergence of magnetic field strengths with numerical resolution, particularly in low-mass halos. In the intergalactic medium (IGM), SNe-only injection underproduces magnetic fields relative to inferred lower limits from $\gamma$-ray cascade constraints at both $z=0$ and $z \sim 3$, whereas our specific SMBH-based injection prescription satisfies present-day constraints but remains in mild tension at high redshifts. Reconciling these specific high-$z$ constraints therefore likely requires either modified feedback prescriptions or an additional primordial seeding component.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08812 by Chris Byrohl, Enrico Garaldi, Rahul Ramesh.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Calibration of galaxy population properties across the simulation suite: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Projected z = 0 magnetic field strength across a representative cosmological volume for different seeding models: Mass-weighted mag￾netic field strengths are projected through the full 25 Mpc/h simulation volume for runs initialized either with no primordial magnetic field (top row) or with a uniform primordial seed field of ∼ 10−14 cG (bottom row). Columns correspond to the primordial-only, SN-driven, BH-… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Radial thermodynamic and magnetic profiles of halos at z [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of kinetic and magnetic power spectra within halos: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Large-scale magnetic field structure around a Milky Way-mass halo: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Magnetic field strengths in filaments at z [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Magnetic field distribution in the intergalactic medium: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Assessing the coherence of magnetic field lines: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

161 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [24]

    U ber den Ursprung der Magnetfelder auf Sternen und im interstellaren Raum (miteinem Anhang von A. Schl \

    \"U ber den Ursprung der Magnetfelder auf Sternen und im interstellaren Raum (miteinem Anhang von A. Schl \"u ter). Zeitschrift Naturforschung Teil A , year = 1950, month = jan, volume =

    1950

  2. [28]

    , keywords =

    The origin and cosmogonic implications of seed magnetic fields. , keywords =

  3. [58]

    Reviews of Plasma Physics , year = 1965, month = jan, volume =

    Transport Processes in a Plasma. Reviews of Plasma Physics , year = 1965, month = jan, volume =

    1965

  4. [64]

    , keywords =

    The survival of gas clouds in the circumgalactic medium of Milky Way-like galaxies. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1239 , archivePrefix =. 1608.05416 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1239

  5. [65]

    Hydrodynamic and hydromagnetic stability

  6. [71]

    , year = 1965, month = aug, volume =

    Thermal Instability. , year = 1965, month = aug, volume =. doi:10.1086/148317 , adsurl =

    doi:10.1086/148317 1965

  7. [72]

    , keywords =

    Thermal instability in gravitationally stratified plasmas: implications for multiphase structure in clusters and galaxy haloes. , keywords =. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19972.x , archivePrefix =. 1105.2563 , primaryClass =

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19972.x 2011

  8. [73]

    , keywords =

    Turbulence in the intracluster medium: simulations, observables, and thermodynamics. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz328 , archivePrefix =. 1810.00018 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stz328

  9. [76]

    The effect of magnetic fields on properties of the circumgalactic medium

    The effect of magnetic fields on properties of the circumgalactic medium. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3938 , archivePrefix =. 2008.07537 , primaryClass =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3938 2008

  10. [77]

    On the origin of magnetic driven winds and the structure of the galactic dynamo in isolated galaxies

    On the origin of magnetic driven winds and the structure of the galactic dynamo in isolated galaxies. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa817 , archivePrefix =. 1907.11727 , primaryClass =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/staa817 1907

  11. [79]

    Resistive Magnetic Field Generation at Cosmic Dawn

    Resistive Magnetic Field Generation at Cosmic Dawn. , keywords =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/73 , archivePrefix =. 1001.2011 , primaryClass =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0004-637x/729/1/73 2011

  12. [114]

    , keywords =

    Ejective and preventative: the IllustrisTNG black hole feedback and its effects on the thermodynamics of the gas within and around galaxies. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2607 , archivePrefix =. 2004.06132 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2607 2004

  13. [124]

    Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady , year = 1941, month = apr, volume =

    Dissipation of Energy in Locally Isotropic Turbulence. Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady , year = 1941, month = apr, volume =

    1941

  14. [125]

    Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics , year = 1968, month = may, volume =

    Enhancement of a Magnetic Field by a Conducting Fluid. Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics , year = 1968, month = may, volume =

    1968

  15. [127]

    , year = 1970, month = mar, volume =

    Gravitational instability: An approximate theory for large density perturbations. , year = 1970, month = mar, volume =

    1970

  16. [155]

    Ar \'a mburo-Garc \' a A., Bondarenko K., Boyarsky A., Nelson D., Pillepich A., Sokolenko A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1632 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.5038A 505, 5038

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1632 2021

  17. [156]

    Ayromlou M., Nelson D., Pillepich A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2046 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.5391A 524, 5391

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2046 2023

  18. [157]

    M., Jablonka P., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202554079 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...702A.145B 702, A145

    Bah \'e Y. M., Jablonka P., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202554079 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...702A.145B 702, A145

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554079 2025

  19. [158]

    A., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308732 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...534..420B 534, 420

    Balbus S. A., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308732 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...534..420B 534, 420

    doi:10.1086/308732 2000

  20. [159]

    A., Hawley J

    Balbus S. A., Hawley J. F., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170270 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...376..214B 376, 214

    doi:10.1086/170270 1991

  21. [160]

    Barrufet L., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stag770 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026MNRAS.548ag770B 548, stag770

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag770 2026

  22. [161]

    Beck R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-015-0084-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&ARv..24....4B 24, 4

    doi:10.1007/s00159-015-0084-4 2015

  23. [162]

    M., Dolag K., Lesch H., Kronberg P

    Beck A. M., Dolag K., Lesch H., Kronberg P. P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1549 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435.3575B 435, 3575

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1549 2013

  24. [163]

    S., Wechsler R

    Behroozi P. S., Wechsler R. H., Conroy C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/57 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...770...57B 770, 57

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/1/57 2013

  25. [164]

    R., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08097.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.353..550B 353, 550

    Bell A. R., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08097.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.353..550B 353, 550

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08097.x 2004

  26. [165]

    Bertone S., Vogt C., En lin T., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10474.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.370..319B 370, 319

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10474.x 2006

  27. [166]

    K., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1386 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.4311B 531, 4311

    Bhowmick A. K., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1386 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.4311B 531, 4311

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1386 2024

  28. [167]

    Biermann L., 1950, Zeitschrift Naturforschung Teil A, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1950ZNatA...5...65B 5, 65

    1950

  29. [168]

    Binney J., Tremaine S., 1987, Galactic dynamics

    1987

  30. [169]

    B., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913696 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...513A..30B 513, A30

    Bonafede A., Feretti L., Murgia M., Govoni F., Giovannini G., Dallacasa D., Dolag K., Taylor G. B., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913696 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...513A..30B 513, A30

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913696 2010

  31. [170]

    M., Agertz O., Kravtsov A

    Booth C. M., Agertz O., Kravtsov A. V., Gnedin N. Y., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/L16 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...777L..16B 777, L16

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/l16 2013

  32. [171]

    P., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169509 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...365..544B 365, 544

    Boulares A., Cox D. P., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169509 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...365..544B 365, 544

    doi:10.1086/169509 1990

  33. [172]

    I., 1965, Reviews of Plasma Physics, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965RvPP....1..205B 1, 205

    Braginskii S. I., 1965, Reviews of Plasma Physics, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965RvPP....1..205B 1, 205

    1965

  34. [173]

    Brandenburg A., Subramanian K., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.06.005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PhR...417....1B 417, 1

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2005.06.005 2005

  35. [174]

    E., Chang P., Pfrommer C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/22 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...752...22B 752, 22

    Broderick A. E., Chang P., Pfrommer C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/22 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...752...22B 752, 22

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/752/1/22 2012

  36. [175]

    Byrohl C., Nelson D., 2024, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.06064 , 9, 6064

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.06064 2024

  37. [176]

    arXiv:2507.11603

    Byrohl C., Nelson D., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2507.11603 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250711603B p. arXiv:2507.11603

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.11603 2025

  38. [177]

    L., Taylor G

    Carilli C. L., Taylor G. B., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093852 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ARA&A..40..319C 40, 319

    doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093852 2002

  39. [178]

    Cautun M., van de Weygaert R., Jones B. J. T., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts416 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429.1286C 429, 1286

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts416 2013

  40. [179]

    P., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150615 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ARA&A..43..337C 43, 337

    Cox D. P., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150615 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ARA&A..43..337C 43, 337

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150615 2005

  41. [180]

    M., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307483 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...520..706C 520, 706

    Crutcher R. M., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307483 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...520..706C 520, 706

    doi:10.1086/307483 1999

  42. [181]

    M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125514 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ARA&A..50...29C 50, 29

    Crutcher R. M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125514 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ARA&A..50...29C 50, 29

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125514 2012

  43. [182]

    A., Loeb A., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169429 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...364..451D 364, 451

    Daly R. A., Loeb A., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169429 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...364..451D 364, 451

    work page doi:10.1086/169429 1990

  44. [183]

    H., Appleby S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz937 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.2827D 486, 2827

    Dav \'e R., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar D., Narayanan D., Li Q., Rafieferantsoa M. H., Appleby S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz937 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.2827D 486, 2827

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz937 2019

  45. [184]

    S., White S

    Davis M., Efstathiou G., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/163168 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...292..371D 292, 371

    doi:10.1086/163168 1985

  46. [185]

    Dolag K., Stasyszyn F., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15181.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398.1678D 398, 1678

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15181.x 2009

  47. [186]

    Dolag K., Bartelmann M., Lesch H., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0202272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...348..351D 348, 351

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0202272 1999

  48. [187]

    Dolag K., Bartelmann M., Lesch H., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20020241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...387..383D 387, 383

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020241 2002

  49. [188]

    Dolag K., Grasso D., Springel V., Tkachev I., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2005/01/009 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005JCAP...01..009D 2005, 009

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2005/01/009 2005

  50. [189]

    Donnert J., Dolag K., Lesch H., M \"u ller E., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14132.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.392.1008D 392, 1008

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14132.x 2009

  51. [190]

    Durrer R., Neronov A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-013-0062-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&ARv..21...62D 21, 62

    doi:10.1007/s00159-013-0062-7 2013

  52. [191]

    Durrive J.-B., Langer M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1578 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453..345D 453, 345

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1578 2015

  53. [192]

    J., Pfrommer C., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/529371 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...677..993D 677, 993

    Dursi L. J., Pfrommer C., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/529371 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...677..993D 677, 993

    doi:10.1086/529371 2008

  54. [193]

    G., Scalo J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094859 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ARA&A..42..211E 42, 211

    Elmegreen B. G., Scalo J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094859 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ARA&A..42..211E 42, 211

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094859 2004

  55. [194]

    Elvis M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317778 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...545...63E 545, 63

    doi:10.1086/317778 2000

  56. [195]

    A., Vogt C., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030172 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...401..835E 401, 835

    En lin T. A., Vogt C., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030172 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...401..835E 401, 835

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030172 2003

  57. [196]

    K., Zweibel E

    Farber R., Ruszkowski M., Yang H.-Y. K., Zweibel E. G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab26d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...856..112F 856, 112

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab26d 2018

  58. [197]

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Lidz A., Zaldarriaga M., Hernquist L., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1416 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703.1416F 703, 1416

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/2/1416 2009

  59. [198]

    Federrath C., 2016, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/S0022377816001069 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016JPlPh..82f5301F 82, 535820601

    doi:10.1017/s0022377816001069 2016

  60. [199]

    S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/156 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...761..156F 761, 156

    Federrath C., Klessen R. S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/156 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...761..156F 761, 156

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/156 2012

  61. [200]

    B., Ripperda B., Philippov A

    Fielding D. B., Ripperda B., Philippov A. A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/accf1f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...949L...5F 949, L5

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/accf1f 2023

  62. [201]

    M., Horellou C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18065.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.412.2396F 412, 2396

    Fletcher A., Beck R., Shukurov A., Berkhuijsen E. M., Horellou C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18065.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.412.2396F 412, 2396

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18065.x 2011

  63. [202]

    Gal \'a rraga-Espinosa D., Garaldi E., Kauffmann G., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244935 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...671A.160G 671, A160

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244935 2023

  64. [203]

    Gal \'a rraga-Espinosa D., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347982 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A..63G 684, A63

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347982 2024

  65. [204]

    Garaldi E., Pakmor R., Springel V., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab086 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.5726G 502, 5726

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab086 2021

  66. [205]

    Goldreich P., Sridhar S., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...438..763G 438, 763

    doi:10.1086/175121 1995

  67. [206]

    Govoni F., Feretti L., 2004, @doi [International Journal of Modern Physics D] 10.1142/S0218271804005080 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004IJMPD..13.1549G 13, 1549

    doi:10.1142/s0218271804005080 2004

  68. [207]

    A., Black J

    Grenier I. A., Black J. H., Strong A. W., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122457 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA&A..53..199G 53, 199

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122457 2015

  69. [208]

    Hahn O., Abel T., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.415.2101H 415, 2101

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x 2011

  70. [209]

    Hanayama H., Takahashi K., Kotake K., Oguri M., Ichiki K., Ohno H., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/491575 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...633..941H 633, 941

    doi:10.1086/491575 2005

  71. [210]

    R., 1970, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/147.3.279 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970MNRAS.147..279H 147, 279

    Harrison E. R., 1970, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/147.3.279 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970MNRAS.147..279H 147, 279

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/147.3.279 1970

  72. [211]

    Haugen N. E. L., Brandenburg A., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevE.70.036408 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PhRvE..70c6408H 70, 036408

    doi:10.1103/physreve.70.036408 2004

  73. [212]

    F., Fendt C., Hardcastle M., Nokhrina E., Tchekhovskoy A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-015-0174-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015SSRv..191..441H 191, 441

    Hawley J. F., Fendt C., Hardcastle M., Nokhrina E., Tchekhovskoy A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-015-0174-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015SSRv..191..441H 191, 441

    doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0174-7 2015

  74. [213]

    Hennebelle P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321292 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...556A.153H 556, A153

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321292 2013

  75. [214]

    F., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3321 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.3465H 492, 3465

    Hopkins P. F., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3321 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.3465H 492, 3465

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3321 2020

  76. [215]

    P., McCourt M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty293 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476..852J 476, 852

    Ji S., Oh S. P., McCourt M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty293 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476..852J 476, 852

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty293 2018

  77. [216]

    H., Hernquist L., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192305 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJS..105...19K 105, 19

    Katz N., Weinberg D. H., Hernquist L., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192305 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJS..105...19K 105, 19

    doi:10.1086/192305 1996

  78. [217]

    P., 1968, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968JETP...26.1031K 26, 1031

    Kazantsev A. P., 1968, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968JETP...26.1031K 26, 1031

    1968

  79. [218]

    C., Stone J

    Kim W.-T., Ostriker E. C., Stone J. M., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379367 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...599.1157K 599, 1157

    work page doi:10.1086/379367 2003

  80. [219]

    N., 1941, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1941DoSSR..32...16K 32, 16

    Kolmogorov A. N., 1941, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1941DoSSR..32...16K 32, 16

    1941

Showing first 80 references.